IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Redhawk Global, LLC,

Plaintiff

 v.

World Projects Int’l, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-666

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

DISCOVERY ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and

for Discovery Sanctions (Doc. 37). Plaintiff Redhawk Global, LLC has brought suit

against defendants World Projects International, Inc. (“WPI”), World Projects

Services International, Inc. (“WPSI”), World Warehouse & Distribution, Inc.

(“WWDI”), JRO Holding, Inc. (“JRO”), Interactive Logistics, Inc. (“Interactive”),

John Rouse, Nicholas Jacomides, and Kevin O’Shea. Defendants WPI and WPSI

are the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding currently pending in Texas. WPI and

WPSI are subsidiaries of JRO, as was WWDI, until it was purchased by Interactive. 

Rouse, Jacomides, and O’Shea are the principals of JRO. Plaintiff alleged in its

complaint that WPI and WPSI failed to pay for certain freight services provided to

them by Redhawk for a construction project, and that the remaining defendants

participated in a scheme to deprive Redhawk of payments originating from the

project’s owner, nonparty Foster-Wheeler North America.

At issue are certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents

Case: 2:11-cv-00666-EAS-MRA Doc #: 56 Filed: 05/22/12 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

promulgated by Plaintiff upon Defendants Rouse, O’Shea, Jacomides, and JRO. 

(Doc. 37-2.) Defendants responded to the discovery requests, although they raised

certain legal objections and protestations that they were unable to comply. Plaintiff

has now filed a motion to compel responses and for the imposition of sanctions upon

the responding defendants. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is

GRANTED IN PART.

The central dispute here appears to be Defendants’ representation that the

documents or records responsive to, or containing information responsive to, several

of Plaintiff’s discovery requests are now in the possession of the WPI/WPSI Chapter

7 bankruptcy trustee. Plaintiff rejoins that “the Defendants cannot simply tell

Redhawk to pound sand and chase the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding in Texas

for documents that Defendants are obligated to provide.” (Doc. 46 at 4.)

Nevertheless, Defendants cannot be compelled to produce that which they do

not have. If the bankruptcy trustee has taken possession of these records, and

Defendants no longer have them, then they cannot comply with these requests. 

Plaintiff protests that Defendants have failed to provide it with information

“relating to the scope of the documents apparently provided to the trustee”, but

none of Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek an inventory of such documents. Plaintiff

may, if it wishes, depose Defendants’ custodians of records or other persons who

supplied the bankruptcy trustee with the documents in question, to ascertain what

these documents were. Plaintiff may also attempt to obtain these records from the

bankruptcy trustee. Furthermore, Plaintiff may of course move – at the

Case: 2:11-cv-00666-EAS-MRA Doc #: 56 Filed: 05/22/12 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

appropriate time – to exclude the evidentiary use of any document which a

defendant misrepresented that it could not produce.

However, Defendants have also raised what amounts to a blanket objection to

nearly all discovery. Echoing their pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 32), they argue

that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring certain claims, and that its discovery requests

are intended merely for the purpose of harassment. (Doc. 41 at 5.) They suggest

that, “[a]t a minimum, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel pending

the Court’s ruling on the dispositive jurisdictional and summary judgment

motions.” (Id.) A party cannot evade its responsibilities to comply with the

discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by arguing, in effect,

that it should not be put to the trouble of responding because it is going to win

anyway. The Court has an obligation to manage its own case calendar and to

encourage the expeditious resolution of litigation. Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 1, 16. No

suggestion that discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of pending

dispositive motions appears in the parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) report, and the

responding defendants made no request in their motion to dismiss for a stay of

discovery. The Court will therefore overrule this objection to the extent that

Defendants object on grounds of relevancy to discovery requests seeking material

relating to the claims that they believe are without merit or are brought against

defendants over whom this court has no jurisdiction.

Plaintiff states that the relief it requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) is

“that the Court compel Defendants to provide answers to certain Interrogatories

Case: 2:11-cv-00666-EAS-MRA Doc #: 56 Filed: 05/22/12 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

and provide documents in response to certain Requests for Production”. The Court

will evaluate those responses which Plaintiff objected in its letter of February 1,

2012.

Interrogatory No. 5: Defendants’ response that they no longer possess

such documents is satisfactory to the extent set forth above.

Interrogatory No. 19: Plaintiff’s interrogatory is reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, given Plaintiff’s claims

that corporate entities were misused to commit a fraud. Defendants

are ORDERED to supplement their response to identify, to the extent

they are able, the dates of corporate defendants’ shareholder meetings

since January 1, 2010, and the agendas, votes, and resolutions in such

meetings. The responding defendants are not required to supply

information concerning Defendant Interactive, unless such information

is in their possession.

Interrogatory No. 22: Plaintiff’s interrogatory is reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants are

ORDERED to respond to this interrogatory, to the extent they are

able.

Request for Production No. 1: Defendants are ORDERED to

supplement their responses to this request to comply with the

provisions of this Order and to produce all responsive nonprivileged

documents in their possession.

Request for Production No. 3: The Court rejects Defendants’ 

contention that the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(3)(A)(iii) call for privileged information. They are ORDERED to,

if they intend to introduce any documents or exhibits into evidence in

this matter, comply with said rule.

Requests for Production Nos. 7, 9, 10: Defendants are ORDERED to

supplement their response to these requests to produce nonprivileged

documents in their possession relating to materials identified in their

supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 16.

Request for Production No. 8: Plaintiff’s request is reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants

are ORDERED to produce all nonprivileged responsive documents in

Case: 2:11-cv-00666-EAS-MRA Doc #: 56 Filed: 05/22/12 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

their possession.

Requests for Production Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25: Defendants

are ORDERED to supplement their responses to these requests to

produce responsive nonprivileged documents in their possession.

Request for Production No. 16: Defendants are ORDERED to

supplement their response to this request to produce responsive

nonprivileged documents in their possession, although the scope of the

request is limited to all years ending on and after December 31, 2010.

Requests for Production Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21: Defendants’ responses are

satisfactory.

Request for Production No. 22: It is not clear why this request is

reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information concerning

any claim in this case. Except with respect to documents covered by

Request No. 16, Defendants’ objection on grounds of relevancy is

sustained.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), Plaintiff’s request for an award of

attorney fees is DENIED. 

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

and Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen

(14) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The

District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this

Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00666-EAS-MRA Doc #: 56 Filed: 05/22/12 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>